We agree... but...

We agree... but only because we don't understand each other.

We "agree" but only because we don't understand each other.  By making our understanding explicit, we can highlight our disagreements and come to a resolution and real agreement.

This type of problem doesn't just exist with product development.  The same issue exists with organisational policies.  With implicit policies, we "agree" but it may be only because we don't understand each other.  Making policies explicit means that we can detect disagreement, come to a resolution, and real agreement.

We "agree"... but actually I don't.

With policies, we also have another phenomena.  "I agree" (but actually I don't and it's too much hassle to change policies so I'll engage in work arounds).

We agree on who makes the decision... but not on the decision logic

Most organisations act as if the most important agreement on decision making is about who makes the decision.  I see that as agreeing on the boundaries of a "decision box".


We agree on the decision logic... but not on who makes the decision

In reality, the more important agreement is about the logic around how to make the decision.  In other words, agreeing on how to fill the "decision box".  If we agree on how decisions should be made, it becomes much less important on who makes them.  This approach seems more sensible to me than suggesting that if we agree on who gets to make decisions, we don't have to agree on how decisions are made.